Supercharger or Turbo ?

[Lauren]

Originally Posted by rhythmnsmoke

Still not following the whole lap time rule though. Knowing your lap times doesn't take away the fun and joy of running the track so what's the point in banning it. Again, it helps to know the times so you can see if you are running consistent and if you can improve.

It's to do with the liability insurance. If anyone is found timing on a trackday they go home, end of. If an accident happened and someone was found to be timing then that would invalidate the insurance. No trackday organiser is going to chance that. I've sent a fair few people home.

Also if people are timing the chances of a coming together may be somewhat higher.

So we take the point of view that you don't need to know laptimes to know whether you are improving or not. Consistency is difficult to achieve on a trackday unless you get a clear lap, due to overtaking by consent rules. As I said I've always taken the attitude of just enjoying myself. When I've gone racing that's been a different matter as everything counts of course.

It's not been 'banned' it's never been allowed. If you want to time yourself you need a scrutineered car, a race licence and all the gear. That would be a test day though.

[SLeRoux92]

back to sc vs. tc, lol, i like turbos but they don't do well in florida's heat and humidity..and sc's are more linear in the power band, but it depends on your preference..i dont really like the sc whine though.. sounds just like my car's chain tensioner issue..

[YourFearlessLeader]

Originally Posted by rhythmnsmoke

Ok back on topic...lol.

Turbo FTW.

correct.

[Kenji]

Originally Posted by rhythmnsmoke

Ok back on topic...lol.

Turbo FTW.

QFT

[Axel]

[Lexicon101]

Originally Posted by Lauren

I wasn't planning on going racing so laptimes are irrelevant. Oh and I'm not a man thanks. Given you aren't allowed to time on trackdays laptimes are still irrelevant.
I realise the limitations of an NA but that does not mean a turbo is better. For the more power it makes it loses in throttle response. As I said 200bhp is plenty enough for what I want.

I think people underestimate how important having razor sharp throttle response is. I always notice the lag of a turbo when I have driven turbo cars on track. I even notice it slightly in supercharged cars of which I've had two which were extensively tracked in the UK & Europe.

The engine is in the car ergo it's a feature of the car. Sure you can fit anti-lag and go faster stripes but we aren't talking about modified cars are we?

go-faster stripes


Essential mod #1.

[BootpTraphik]

I'm gonna jolt this thread a bit.
I would prefer as like many of you to have a high power NA FT-86, just because it is simpler, easier and cheaper to maintain, and better on gas (but who really cares?). However, its not in my nature to leave things alone and not screw with them a bit. In my opinion, a SC would be for me. Less psi/power than a TC, but more linear response and great off the line performance which is better for a street car IMO. A nice positive displacement pump would be nice. Lets say an additional 30hp, that would be fine for me. Fitting it on a boxer motor however...

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by BootpTraphik

I'm gonna jolt this thread a bit.
I would prefer as like many of you to have a high power NA FT-86, just because it is simpler, easier and cheaper to maintain, and better on gas (but who really cares?). However, its not in my nature to leave things alone and not screw with them a bit. In my opinion, a SC would be for me. Less psi/power than a TC, but more linear response and great off the line performance which is better for a street car IMO. A nice positive displacement pump would be nice. Lets say an additional 30hp, that would be fine for me. Fitting it on a boxer motor however...

Youtube "SC Impreza" or "Supercharger Impreza" I'm pretty sure you can find several vids of boxer sc engine. iirc they use to have vid of 800hp sc + twin tc STI. I'm not sure they still have that vid. It was crazy setup too.

[serchmarc]

NA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

[futureOwner]

There won't be a SC version, but Superchargers are only half as efficient as turbos, because some power is used to spool it up, while a turbo spools without any power needed. I would like a turbo, but I imagine I won't be able to afford the upgrade and I will stick with the NA. I'll know more next year at about this time...then I'll have money saved etc. and we will know if there is even going to be a turbo.

[C-Bone]

Its all personal pref but I absolutely love the sound of a turbo, on certain cars more than others all depends on the setup

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by futureOwner

There won't be a SC version, but Superchargers are only half as efficient as turbos, because some power is used to spool it up, while a turbo spools without any power needed. I would like a turbo, but I imagine I won't be able to afford the upgrade and I will stick with the NA. I'll know more next year at about this time...then I'll have money saved etc. and we will know if there is even going to be a turbo.

No offense, but what century you live in? Most of current superchargers are efficient as turbos.

[u2b]q5M8NSS8Krc[/u2b]

http://xcceleration.com/imp-gallery-rs.sc.dynosheet.htm
2.35 Liter H4 20 psi pushing 412hp w 332tq...

it's not good enough for ya?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Turbo sucks. Just saying current technology Supercharger and Turbo are almost equal level.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

No offense, but what century you live in? Most of current superchargers are efficient as turbos.

[u2b]q5M8NSS8Krc[/u2b]

http://xcceleration.com/imp-gallery-rs.sc.dynosheet.htm
2.35 Liter H4 20 psi pushing 412hp w 332tq...

it's not good enough for ya?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Turbo sucks. Just saying current technology Supercharger and Turbo are almost equal level.

I wouldn't go quite that far, Ichi. When it comes to efficiency, the big difference is that turbos harness 'waste' exhaust (not getting into the 5th cycle of scavenging and pulse tuning for now...) to create their boost, whereas superchargers require HP from the motor to create their boost. Yes new supercharger systems are vastly superior than old ones (also depends if we're talking positive displacement SC or centrifugal SC). But they still cannot compare to a turbo system especially if you want to get into modern turbo tech like variable geometry plus going into higher boost ranges. They also tend to be a bit of a pain for intercooling I hear.

That being said there is a certain appeal of the thought of 'lag-less' boost from a positive displacement SC. The power delivery is virtually linear, just like NA but there is more of it!

As for centrifugal systems, they don't quite make sense to me. Kind of the worst of both systems, laggy like a turbo (well not quite, but not the instant boost of a positive displacement) but needs engine HP to turn it. Where they do make a bit of sense is on bigger OHV V8's where they already make good low end power and need help in their top-end.

So far I have not driven any supercharged system to have anything more than a theoretical opinion, though.

PS: What the hell is that youtube motor for? Exhaust is weird.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I wouldn't go quite that far, Ichi. When it comes to efficiency, the big difference is that turbos harness 'waste' exhaust (not getting into the 5th cycle of scavenging and pulse tuning for now...) to create their boost, whereas superchargers require HP from the motor to create their boost. Yes new supercharger systems are vastly superior than old ones (also depends if we're talking positive displacement SC or centrifugal SC). But they still cannot compare to a turbo system especially if you want to get into modern turbo tech like variable geometry plus going into higher boost ranges. They also tend to be a bit of a pain for intercooling I hear.

That being said there is a certain appeal of the thought of 'lag-less' boost from a positive displacement SC. The power delivery is virtually linear, just like NA but there is more of it!

As for centrifugal systems, they don't quite make sense to me. Kind of the worst of both systems, laggy like a turbo (well not quite, but not the instant boost of a positive displacement) but needs engine HP to turn it. Where they do make a bit of sense is on bigger OHV V8's where they already make good low end power and need help in their top-end.

So far I have not driven any supercharged system to have anything more than a theoretical opinion, though.

PS: What the hell is that youtube motor for? Exhaust is weird.

You have good point on turbo waste exhaust.

As for IC, is this good enough?

Prefer FMIC?

oh want smaller IC w BOV?

btw this raptor SC is only running 5.2psi and getting hp & tq close to or same as wrx. Also this Raptor SC can equip w stock wrx or sti IC.

The stock power was 95kw and 240Nm (disregard the silly bit at start of the run) at the wheels which was very good due to breathing directly into throttle body, no alternator and P/S belt and the very good exhaust system.


The next chart should show the best run, well it was the best final tuned run as the best run was 123kw at the wheels but just too hot later into test to make that number again. So 119kw and 351Nm was measured. Increases of 24kw and 130Nm, that torque is unreal and when you change gear the car cranks right back into it.

The final chart shows the difference between stock and Supercharged at 5.2psi.

To sum it up, its 40Nm ahead of but same engine kw (160kw) as the MY05 WRX 2.0 as delivered to Australia. NICE but with out the dead bottom end power of the WRX. Those in Canada or Nth America's colder area's could expect better numbers too. We are not exactly creating WRX killing weapons here, just increasing your NA power as reliably as possible.

Still not good enough?


PS
That engine is just regular Impreza engine & the shop tuned it for full SC built Boxer engine. iirc they took that vid while they were testing the engine, so that's why they're not drop inside the car yet.